Well, like I said in my origional post, I installed RedHat on a secondary system (the installation seemed almost "windowish" to me) and I have been playing with it all day (I even installed a couple of rpm packages). Still trying to figure out how to do some things that are simple in Windows (for instance installing Netbios on my Ethernet card) but RedHat has so far been (I believe) a good starting point for me. I was suprised when I typed "dir" accidently at a command prompt and it actually worked.

Maybe I will blow away the redhat install and try FreeBSD (but not this month) I don't keep data on this machine so blowing it away and reformatting to a new OS is not a problem. Are the different versions of Linux THAT different from each other?

After I get my network protocol problem resolved, all I have to do is figure out how to install from a CD Drive that is NOT bootable and I'll install it on another system.

Oh, I found that I can use Remote Desktop Client to connect to my Win2k Server. And I found that I can use WinaXe to connect to my Linux box from my Windows PC (but that way costs $150 - Is there a cheaper way to do that?)

Samba was covered below for Windows file sharing. The "dir" is an alias of "ls -al" that is set up by default in RedHat.

As for different distros, the Linuxes are a little different, but most of it is "look and feel", under the hood the kernel is the same. However, FreeBSD is NOT Linux, it is another OS but out by Berkley. There are actually several distros of BSD as well, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are the more common. They are unix variants as well that run thier own kernels, not Linux Kernels. The file system is similar, but still different on the lower levels. BSD is worth looking at as well, should you get the time. I like it a lot, but that is my personal preference, evaluating the different OS's to make an educated choice on a preference is highly recomended :)

Good luck, I hope you don't get too frustrated, once you pick up the basics, you might start really liking it.

One other tip I have for learning any OS fast, use that machine for everything you do on a daily basis, e-mail, surfing, working, everything, this will force you to start learning more and more.

"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!

Still trying to figure out how to do some things that are simple in Windows (for instance installing Netbios on my Ethernet card)

What you likely want is Samba.

I was suprised when I typed "dir" accidently at a command prompt and it actually worked.

You'll likely find a few commands that are the same, or slightly different. Like ipconfig on Windows, is ifconfig on Linux.

Are the different versions of Linux THAT different from each other?

Well, yes and no. It depends on what ones you are comparing. Redhat and Mandrake are very similar, especially in that they are both very Windows like. Redhat tailors things to its own needs, similar to Windows. Debian and Slackware are comparable, I guess. I would call them the more "workman" class, if that means anything to you. Debian and Slackware will provide more functionallity for an advanced user, at the price of a bit tougher install. They are also typically not as bloated as Mandrake and Redhat, but this of course depends on what you decide to install. Gentoo and some of the bootable from a disk linux versions are really small, WindowManager-less (unless you install your own), but extremely fast.

I guess it all depends on what you want to use the machine for. If I was going to run a server, I would typically choose FreeBSD (most secure out of the box), or Redhat (largest community, so makes sense it would get the fastest updates). For programming needs, I choose Debian especially since the apt-get program will give you a boner. For a personal computer, I typically use Mandrake (just like it, that's all), or Debian. For the fun of it, I also like playing with Gentoo.

After I get my network protocol problem resolved, all I have to do is figure out how to install from a CD Drive that is NOT bootable and I'll install it on another system.

Your CD drive is not bootable? I don't want to make it sound like I think you're stupid or anything, but have you tried to change that in the BIOS? Most CD drives these days are bootable. If your BIOS won't let you change it, you can try flashing the BIOS, hoping that a newer version will support this functionallity. If all else fails, do a network install. You should be able to find some version of Linux that will give you the capability to load minimal drivers onto a floppy so that you can do a network install.

Oh, I found that I can use Remote Desktop Client to connect to my Win2k Server. And I found that I can use WinaXe to connect to my Linux box from my Windows PC (but that way costs $150 - Is there a cheaper way to do that?)

Yes, how about SSH? Your linux system will have the capability to be an SSH Server by default (may require setting this up, but the stuffs all there), then you can get the Putty SSH client and install it on your Windows machine. Also, if you have to have a Graphical Remote Client to your Linux box, you can try using VNC. I believe there is a VNC server available for some flavors of Linux, and you should be able to get a VNC client for Windows easy enough. I'm assuming they'll work together.

I guess it all depends on what you want to use the machine for. If I was going to run a server, I would typically choose FreeBSD (most secure out of the box), or Redhat (largest community, so makes sense it would get the fastest updates). For programming needs, I choose Debian especially since the apt-get program will give you a boner. For a personal computer, I typically use Mandrake (just like it, that's all), or Debian. For the fun of it, I also like playing with Gentoo.

What, no mention of OpenBSD for most secure out of the box? Heck, its /usr/bin/perl is even 5.8.0 (as of 3.3). I use this exclusively at home - the only beef I have is the poor support (which I last tried in 3.2) for Java.

Tied, by tied I mean like "tie game", I like both almost equally :) The only similarity is probably Berkley Sockets :)

Yes, learning *nix is a good thing. Some time back people were saying that *nix was breathing it's last, but they were very confused individuals :)

As for the tweaking, we could argue all day :) However I do know that MS has been trying to be as RFC compliant as possible with Win2k and beyond. And by tweaking, they really don't have to be the same as anyone else, my point was just that RedHate was trying to break the *nix mold and in doing so broke some "Knowlege Compatability" with other distros and *nix flavours.

Again, more of a personal frustration, and preference than anything.

"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!

Ok, I'll agree with you that we shoul all learn *Nix, and that those that thought it was a dying breed were clearly mistaken, but I'll still say Windows is the worst of the "tweakers". Just look at how they're implementing Kerberos. Purposely breaking it so it won't work with *Nix. Bastards.

Heh, trust me when I say that the arguements over Kerberos during the Win2k Dev cycle where bloody at best. I can't argue that MS has a history of doing things whatever way is easiest for them, and I'm not trying too. My only point was that there is continuity between all MS OS's, knowlege from one can be transported to a different version. With Linux this is true across all distros except RedHat, or at least, it is less true about them.

I also think that I am infulenced by the fact that most of the anti-MS zealotry and OS bigotry I have experienced comes from people who prefer RedHat. I dislike zealotry in any form, especially when it comes in the form of bashing the "enemy" more than pushing your own views. So that probably has influence on my viewpoints :)

Update: It just occured to me to explain myself a little better. This thread is not about MS vs Linux or anything like that. It is more What I Expect vs. What I Get, and with RedHat I don't always get what I expect :)

Again, the biggest beef I have with RedHat is that I, personaly, find it frustrating to work on. The syntax on many things is tweaked just enough that I have to re-remember that difference every time. I also dislike that the RPM packages put things in weird places compared with all of the other *nixs I am familiar with (Apache is a prime example of this). It just makes things harder than it should for me.

"Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!